JUDGMENT : Rajendra Kumar-IV, J. 1. Heard Sri MPS Chauhan, learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record. 2. Impugned order dated 27.01.2018, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Aligarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2016 and judgment and order dated 7.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 1401 of 2009, are under challenge in the present revision. 3. Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 377 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25000/- with default sentence. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2016 filed there-against has also been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Aligarh, vide order dated 27.01.2018. 5. Brief facts, as per prosecution story, are that on 4.10.2000, at about 5:00 pm, victim boy (name withheld) aged about 5 years, was playing at the roof of the house. Accused called him fondly and took him to the field and molested him in Millet filed. On hearing his scream, Dinesh and other persons reached there. Victim approached his grandmother-Kailashi and narrated the entire incident. PW-1, Mahendra Singh uncle of the victim, submitted written Tehrir, Ex.Ka-1, in respect of incident before the Police Station concerned. On the basis of written Tehrir, Ex.Ka-1, Chick FIR has been registered by Constable Clerk, under Section 377 IPC, against the accused and entry of case was made in the General Diary. 6. PW-3, Dr. S.B. Sharma, medically examined the victim and prepared injury report, Ex.KA-2. Investigating Officer of case commenced investigation, prepared site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected other evidence, found sufficient evidence and submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 377 IPC before the Court concerned. 7. Trial Court, on 19.4.2003, framed the charge against the accused, under Section 377 IPC. Accused-revisionist herein denied the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 8. In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Mahendra Singh, PW-2 victim and PW-3 Dr. S B Sharma. Out of whom, PW1 and 2 are the witnesses of fact and PW-3 is formal witness conducting medical examination. 9. On closure of evidence of prosecution, statement of accused-revisionist was recorded by the Trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused-revisionist denied the prosecution story in toto. He examined DW-1 Sahab Singh in his defence evidence. S B Sharma. Out of whom, PW1 and 2 are the witnesses of fact and PW-3 is formal witness conducting medical examination. 9. On closure of evidence of prosecution, statement of accused-revisionist was recorded by the Trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused-revisionist denied the prosecution story in toto. He examined DW-1 Sahab Singh in his defence evidence. Statements of witnesses are said to be wrong by him. Trial Court considering the entire evidence, convicted the accused-revisionist and sentenced as stated above. 10. Learned counsel for revisionist advanced the arguments in the following manner : - There is no public witness in support of prosecution. - There is no motive to accused-revisionist to commit the present crime. - Informant PW-1, is not an eye witness. He reached on the spot on hearing the alarm raised by victim. - There is contradiction in the statements of witnesses. Statement of victim PW-2 is self contradictory. - Medical evidence does not go with the oral testamentary. - Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record carefully and convicted the accused-revisionist on the basis of surmises and conjectures. - In case revision fails, accused-revisionist may be sentenced to the the period already under gone. 11. In response thereto, learned AGA for State opposed the revision by arguing that accused-revisionist had carnal intercourse with victim, aged about 5 years, and victim himself is a responsible witness. His statement is duly intact and believable, worthy to credence. Trial Court after full care and caution, appreciated the evidence and rightly convicted and sentenced to the accused-revisionist. Appeal there-against is also well reasoned and has been rightly dismissed. It is an offence against the society and accused-revisionist requires no sympathetic consideration and revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for accused-revisionist, learned AGA for State at considerable length and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for parties. 13. Now I may consider the evidence of prosecution. PW-2 (victim of the present case) deposed that he was playing on the roof of the house; accused-revisionist-Rameshwar took him in the Millet field from there. He committed carnal intercourse in the Millet field with him. At that time, it was 5:00 pm. 13. Now I may consider the evidence of prosecution. PW-2 (victim of the present case) deposed that he was playing on the roof of the house; accused-revisionist-Rameshwar took him in the Millet field from there. He committed carnal intercourse in the Millet field with him. At that time, it was 5:00 pm. At the time of intercourse, he cried and on hearing his scream, one Dinesh reached there at the place of occurrence and he rushed to his grandmother Kailashi and narrated the entire story to her. His anus was bleeding. His uncle took him to Police Station, later on Aligarh Hospital, where he was medically examined. Police inquired him whereupon who told the incident to Police. Victim PW-2 withstood lengthy cross-examination but nothing adverse material could be brought on record so as to disbelieve his natural evidence. At the time of incident, victim was aged about 5 years. There was no reason to him to state falsely against the accused-revisionist. His statement appears to be quite natural. 14. PW-3, S.B. Sharma, deposed that on 5.10.2000, he was posted as Emergency Medical Officer (EMO) in Malkhan Singh Hospital, Aligarh. On the very same day, at about 1:50 am, victim, aged about 5 years, was taken by HG Ram Kumar for medical examination. He examined the victim and found local tenderness over his anal region, skin was red in colour, anal swab was taken by him and sent for pathological examination but he did not found any external mark of injury over the body. 15. Thus doctor PW-3 examined the victim supported the prosecution case, medical evidence completely goes with the statement of victim. 16. So far as the public witness is concerned, it is well settled that in absence of public witness, prosecution story cannot be disbelieved unless it is otherwise proved. Incident like rape or sexual assault is generally committed in lonely place and it is not possible for prosecution to produce public witness. 17. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 . Court held as under : “A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. 17. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 . Court held as under : “A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.” 18. In Dharnidhar v. State of UP (2010) 7 SCC 759 , Court has observed as follows :- “There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry (2010) 1 SCC 199 , this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim” 19. In Ganga Bhawani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, 2013(15) SCC 298 , Court has held as under :- “11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. In Ganga Bhawani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, 2013(15) SCC 298 , Court has held as under :- “11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of UP, AIR 2011 SC 2292 ; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2013 SC 308 ).” 20. In so far as discrepancies, variation and contradiction in the prosecution case are concerned, we have analysed entire evidence in consonance with the submissions raised by learned counsel's and find that the same do not go to the root of case. 21. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 , the Apex Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. 22. In Sachin Kumar Singhraha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 473-474 of 2019 decided on 12.3.2019 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court will have to evaluate the evidence before it keeping in mind the rustic nature of the depositions of the villagers, who may not depose about exact geographical locations with mathematical precision. Discrepancies of this nature which do not go to the root of the matter do not obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence. It need not be stated that it is by now well settled that minor variations should not be taken into consideration while assessing the reliability of witness testimony and the consistency of the prosecution version as a whole. 23. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150 , Court re-iterated the view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. 23. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150 , Court re-iterated the view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused inspite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. 24. Considering the entire evidence and in view of legal proposition of law discussed herein above, I do not find any legal or otherwise error in the judgment rendered by the Courts below, conviction of the accused revisionist under Section 377 IPC is liable to be maintained. It is maintained. Revision is dismissed on the point of conviction under the aforesaid section. 25. So far as the sentence of accused is concerned, it is a matter of discretion to be exercised on the consideration of circumstance aggravating and mitigating in the individual case. It is settled legal position that sentence should be awarded after a giving consideration to the facts and circumstance of each case, nature of offence, and manner in which it was committed. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of offence. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistency with the atrocity and brutality. 26. Incident in this case is of 2000. A considerable time has elapsed. Keeping in view the nature of allegation against the accused-revisionist, injury found on the person of victim, age of accused, applying the legal principle and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstance of the case, sentence awarded by the Court below is being modified. 27. Revision is partly allowed confirming the conviction of the accused-revisionist under Section 377 IPC and the impugned order of sentence is modified. Accused-revisionist shall under go for a period of three years' rigorous imprisonment and he will also pay fine already imposed by trial court concerned and under the condition as imposed by trial Court. Period of detention undergone by accused-revisionist shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment in accordance with law. 28. Accused-revisionist shall under go for a period of three years' rigorous imprisonment and he will also pay fine already imposed by trial court concerned and under the condition as imposed by trial Court. Period of detention undergone by accused-revisionist shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment in accordance with law. 28. Copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be sent back forthwith for information and compliance through District Judge, concerned.